Talk:Patrie (airship)

Significant figures

The article states that on it's final flight, the ship achieved a height of 6562. This is confirmed in the source, but I think it is faulty. Clearly this is meant to be 2000m in the original source since 2000.0 meters = 6 561.7 feet. This source seems to have destroyed the information about significant figures in it's conversion. The source does it again with 750.0 kg = 1653 pounds.

Maybe another source should be found that says 2000 meters (and may indicate the significant figures) and that can be the source of the information. If such a source can be found, I propose that it be reconverted back to feet using the correct significant figures (probably 2, so 6600 feet).

– Bu gee (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That altitude number was a wild estimate, so significant figures are probably 1 or 2 with a large +/- margin. One way around the problem in feet is to say it went up to "2000 meters (or yards)", which might pass muster with such a guesstimate. Tempshill (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bu gee, I'm sure that you are right about the figures having been converted from metres, since "the constructor", i.e. the Lebaudy Brothers or the designer Julliot, were French and would have given their estimates in metres. Unfortunately there is only the one (secondary)source (Colonel F. G. STONE) at the moment, so the figure in feet is all we have. George Squier (US Army) states

The ballonette for air had a capacity of 22,958 cub. ft. or about one-fifth of the total volume. This is calculated to permit reaching a height of about 1 mile and to be able to return to the earth, keeping the gas-bag always rigid.

but this was before the enlargement of the gas-bag, I think. I did search for French sources but have not found anything yet. --TraceyR (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no joke about the lack of sources about that. I took a really hard look at the historic NY Times and Washington Post from 1907 through 1990 as well as whatever I could find at google books this afternoon and the only thing that I saw said something along the lines of 'it surely would have gone up a mile'. – Bu gee (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Great article

Nice one mate. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Multi-layer envelope / Design section

At present the detail of the structure of the envelope is given in a footnote. Is this level of detail best left there, or would it be better to incorporate it into the design section?
Apropos the latter, I think that it is long enough to warrant subdivision into subsections, e.g. Envelope, Gondola, Ballonet, Engine etc. Would make it more accessible to the first-time reader? Any ideas? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes the more content in the article the better essentially (plus it'll make your refs look tidier) and yes I think that would be a good idea, it'll make it more attractive for the readers and more encyclopaedic. However the new subsections should be at least 2 paragraphs, otherwise don't create them e.g. The engine bit is only 1 paragraph long and quite short, so it might not warrant it's own subsection, but the part about the gas bag is long enough. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming format

To place this discussion in the correct place and open it up to a wider audience the following string is copied from the talk pages of TraceyR and Red Sunset: --Red Sunset 10:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice additions again – I understood the Lebaudy 1 was rebuilt from the attached ref ([4]), but it doesn't mention that it was renamed Lebaudy 2. (I've found one that does so I'll tack it on as well.) In view of this, should the Patrie be regarded as the second or third Lebaudy airship? One source states that it was the third, but technically speaking it was the second entirely new airship! This is something that might well come up at a GAC review, but in the end it just comes down to point of view. --Red Sunset 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

re Lebaudy 1-2-3-4 we share the same misgivings. I altered the Lebaudy template for good measure, leaving just 1 and 2. As fas as I can make out, it was just the one ship, which metamorphosed into the later numbers. The deciding factor for me today was a source which said that it was handed over to the army as Lebaudy 2! All very French, somehow! Anyway, we need to find a sound set of sources for whatever number it is. For me the Patrie really is the second, ordered by the forces on the back of the 1-2-3-4's performance; I'll have to have a thorough look at the better sources. If you look at a contemporary French source (Le tour de France en aéroplane_(misleading title) - Gutenberg, so you'll need to download it to look at it), the story runs from Nov. 1902 to Oct. 1906, when the Patrie was ordered, mentioning only the one airship, the "Lebaudy". I think that I'll change it back tomorrow, giving that ref as the source! I'll leave it to the Lebaudy Lebaudy (how about that for an article title!!) article to sort that lot out! Perhaps Lebaudy Jaune would be better, even though it was really a nickname. The Patrie was yellow too, of course. --TraceyR (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[Here it is:] This source enumerates the 4 stages (5 actually!), from 1 (1902) to 1bis (1903) to 2 (early 1904) to 3 (early 1905) and finally to 4 (3/7/1905). That's way to much detail for this article, so I think the Patrie should be the second Lebaudy airship and the template sould be restored so that 2,3,and 4 all point to 1, as it was earlier today. Maybe it should include the 1bis. Any views? I'm off to ZZZZZs now! It seems that the whole envelope was replaced by a longer one on the 4. What constitutes the airship? It's a bit like the grandfather's knife, with a new blade and a replacement handle! --TraceyR (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello folks! Sorry, I am busy with engines but I just had another quick look through and did some tweaking. I can see a mixture of metric and Imperial units (11 foot props, 280 Liter fuel tank etc). I think the guideline is that as a French aircraft all the units would have to be primarily metric with Imperial conversions given as an option (although highly recommended). I have a handy conversion programme if you don't want to use the templates. Never enough hours in the day for me at the moment. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you onboard 'Nimble' – good points that can be quickly addressed; I suppose the mixture of primary units has occurred as a result of those used in the relevant sources!

You're certainly doing your homework TraceyR; that source you gave me sorts it out once and for all! Trust the French to complicate matters; still, a bit of rewording to the effect that the Patrie was the second entirely new Lebaudy airship together with that ref will put the matter straight. Off for the day now, but if you haven't been able to get to it yourself I'd be happy to attend to it this evening. Cheers for now. --Red Sunset 09:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made the change and cited the Swiss site, but I'd like some thoughts about the predecessor airship(s) WRT the template. Some sources refer to the Lebaudy, some to Lebaudy 1,2,3,4 etc, so should the template give those names and link them to the "Lebaudy Lebaudy"? BTW, the Swiss site has a UK flag pointing to the English version of the website, provided via the Google translation service - v. interesting: "Its asymmetric envelope, inflated with hydrogen, is attached by ropes to a platform of steel tubes, a 1st in the world of football..."! One may laugh (I did!), but apart from the howler it's a surprisingly good sentence. Is automatic translation becoming feasible? Back to the template: since it is early days, I'll just edit it; we can always sort it out later. It shouldn't contradict the article's statement that the Patrie was the second! Another thought. This thread should really be on the Patrie talk page! Can it be moved there without offending WP rules?--TraceyR (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right; this string really ought to be on the article talk page (believe it or not that thought did cross my mind this morning). Anyway, I don't think that anyone's sensibilities would be upset if it was copied over and provided with a forenote to that effect. Re the name of Patrie's predecessor/s (what a mix up!), Lebaudy Lebaudy seems a bit inelegant even if it is correct – I prefer the encompassing title Lebaudy 'Jaune' – but either way, a short footnote following its first mention within the text explaining its incarnations should prevent any confusion and at the same not bring side issues into the main text. Similarly, perhaps the template entry could be Lebaudy(1–4) 'Jaune' linked to Lebaudy 'Jaune'??? BTW, that part of the translation is into good English, and no doubt it would be a 1st in football! (Lol)

I've spotted a small number of non-metric primary units in the text which can be addressed, but there are two that I'm loathe to alter since they're within quotes (although I'm sure the figures were converted during translation), and the 10 and 20 lb (4.5 and 9.1 kg) sandbags were probably 4.5 and 9 kg originally before translation. To avoid making assumptions and changes for the sake of consistency, I think the answer is to look through French sources for the original values. We seem to keep coming up with more questions than answers so I guess that peer review is a little way off yet! --Red Sunset 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment/peer review?

There is very little accessible information left 'out there' IMHO with which to improve the article. I'm on the track of something from a 1907 issue of the Paris magazine "L'Illustration" (no. 3381, 14 Dec. 1907), which may clarify the source of the sighting near the Isle of Man, but by and large I consider the article as good as it's going to get (in terms of available information). There was a bound volume of 1907 issues on ebay recently, but it went for almost €50 - out of my league for the sake of one article! Anyway, it's up for Class A(/GA?) assessment, but things are quiet there at the moment. I'm not sure how to progress it further; I may be offline for a while some time soon, so I'll probably just observe for a while. I'm pleased with the results of the work of all who have contributed to make it a good little article! Thanks everyone. --TraceyR (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You've done your homework and put in a lot of time and hard work into this article TraceyR, and I think you're right in that there's not a lot more info available (apart from trivial details). I think it looks pretty good now as well – just have to wait a bit longer for your assessment request to bear fruit before taking further action. --Red Sunset 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Film footage of the Patrie!

I have stumbled across a short film sequence showing the Patrie 'reversing out' of the hangar at Moisson in 1906/07, her being 'man-handled' on tethers by the ground team, close-ups of the gondola and the Patrie in flight. This brings her to life. This version of the film (there are others without it) starts with the title "1er Départ" - does this perhaps mean that this is footage of the Patrie's first flight?

The film footage of the Patrie, only one minute long, was made by Alice Guy-Blaché, the first female director in the motion picture industry; at the time she may have been working for Gaumont. If it is now in the public domain, it would be an important addition to the article.

About 1:22 into the film (including lead-in etc) there is the best view I have come across of the 'elevator' control surfaces mounted ahead of the gondola (i.e. in addition to the empennage), which either do not feature in other images or are very hard to discern. Certainly they are not fitted in the other images at present in the article - a bit of a conundrum. Perhaps they were removed at a later date?

Another 'problem' is that the propellers and the empennage indicate that the film was made in 1906, but film sources about Guy's work claim that she made (or released?) it in 1907. If it really was the first flight, that clinches the date as 1906, of course. Can anyone help with any of these aspects? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting find! The film title would seem to indicate that this was the first flight; but in any case the flight took place in 1906 judging by the empennage etc. as you point out, therefore one can only assume that the film was released rather than made in 1907, or someone simply slipped up with the dating! Re the forward control surfaces/planes, they don't appear extended either side during later flight scenes, although another difficult-to-discern flat object of similar length now seems to be suspended longitudinally below the gas-bag in approximately their same position. This same 'shape' does not appear in the early part of the clip when the planes are clearly visible to the sides, but is present in the article's 1907 infobox image – could they have been present all along and simply folded inboard to sit on top of each other at times for some reason??? --Red Sunset 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the surfaces folding 'out of the way' is intriguing and would explain some of the images. I have seen a photo from mid-1907 (the Clemenceau flight, in fact) where one of them is clearly visible. I think that part of the problem is that the photos are very grainy and black-and-white, so that it is next to impossible to see a control surface in front of the gas-bag. Most photos are side views too, in which they would be difficult to see anyway. I think that folding them inboard would have been difficult, given the large number of ropes hanging around. Perhaps they were on detachable arms which could be fitted/removed easily and were only used when weather conditions required them. There are some good pictures of the Patrie's sister ship, République, which show the same features (e.g. here). I have asked Jean-Pierre Lauwers (the JPL in the filename) and Alice-Guy-JR (who uploaded the film) for more info: watch this space! --TraceyR (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the process of moving and 'stowing' the surfaces would appear to be difficult, but at the present time it's the only explanation I can think of. Naturally, I could be completely wrong (pity better cameras weren't around then)! Let's hope your two contacts have a better idea. Great work on the whole thing BTW. :-) --Red Sunset 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If you zoom in on this image of the République (zoom a long way in - it can take it) you can follow the whole axle joining the two 'elevators' (the caption refers to them as "ailerons d'ascension et de descente"). Unfortunately I can see no 'sleeve join' allowing the outboard arms to be detached easily, nor any sign of a hinge mechanism. There is what appear to be a support bracket just inboard of each elevator, which would have prevented both folding and removal of the controls, so they seem to have been permanent fixtures. The République might have been different in such details, of course, but it does seems to have been the same in most major components. --TraceyR (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, it was just a possibility – back to the drawing board and thinking cap back on! Cheers ;-) --Red Sunset 14:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I re-read the primary source for technical details (an article in the Flight pdf archive, which appeared over a year after the loss of the Patrie.). This includes the following:

"Stability. A movable horizontal plane near the centre of gravity, above the car, is used to produce rising or descending motion, or to prevent an involuntary rising or falling of the airship due to expansion or contraction of the gas, or to other causes. After the adoption of this movable horizontal plane, the loss of gas and ballast was reduced to a minimum."

The information given suggests that at first there was no such (single) plane; later it was added, improving performance. Even later, the single plane was replaced by the two 'elevators' (an assumption, since this configuration was used on its replacement, the République). If this is the chronological sequence, then the Alice Guy film cannot have covered the first flight. But this information explains the three different configurations of this feature in evidence in the photos of the Patrie! Progress, it would appear. --TraceyR (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that does explain why these features appear in some images but not in others; however, in the opening sequence of the film it appears we have the early empennage together with the later elevators. Maybe the time scale for implementing the improved stability control devices was shorter than that for installing the later empennage. Another conundrum is that later sequences of the film show the earlier single stability plane! I'm beginning to wonder if the Alice Guy film is the result of editing together more than one reel out of chronological order?! In any case, the article would benefit from the info you've just provided even if the film may not be completely reliable as far as continuity is concerned, so progress indeed. --Red Sunset 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have heard from from Alice-Guy_jr, who tells me that "1er depart" is the generic title in all of Guy's films, so that is a relief: There is no longer the conundrum about the 'twin elevators' on the maiden flight, no need to postulate out-of-sequence editing! She also mentioned that Alice Guy left for the USA in March 1907, so that gives us a latest possible date for this configuration.

It may not be possible to match the chronology of these planes and the empennage, since there was an overlap in the developments of the different controls. There were two "deflation" periods (18 Dec. 1906 - 26 June 1907 and 8 Aug.- 14 Oct. 1907). There is, of course, still a problem with the date of the film: Since it must have been made before Alice Guy's departure for the USA, then both the single and twin elevators must have been fitted during test flying from Moisson, prior to delivery to Chalais-Meudon on 15 Dec. 1906. This seems unlikely. But (quel horreur!) is all of this Original Research? I'll have a go at improving the article using the 'new' information about the stability planes. --TraceyR (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, at last we can put everything within, and about the film into context, and put an end to what you're probably correct in suggesting is WP:OR! The known facts are now in the article, and the film is linked for illustrative purposes – nice 'n tidy! :-)

There still doesn't seem to be much interest in assessing this at the Project does there!. :-( --Red Sunset 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the film footage has disappeared from the internet - I hope just for the time being. --TraceyR (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledge help of Jean-Pierre Lauwers

It would be amiss of me not to mention here that Jean-Pierre Lauwers, a genuine expert historian in the field of lighter-than-air flight, has been of great help in providing background information and access to images from his extensive collection of photos. Of course any mistakes I have introduced are mine, not his! Some of his collection can be see here, hosted at "Rosebud's WWI and Early Aviation Image Archive" (www.earlyaviator.com), which has over 3,800 downloadable images from the pioneering days of flight. --TraceyR (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Rosebud has been grounded. If anyone finds his new mooring post, please leave a note here! Many thanks! --TraceyR (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found a note that it is (was) due back on 28 September. I'll just have to be patient. --TraceyR (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is here, much as before. --TraceyR (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Epilogue?

I wonder whether there ought to be a sort of "what happened after the loss of the Patrie?" paragraph - that the "Ville de Paris" (I think!) was offered to the army as a stop-gap replacement, that the sister-ship République was built ... Any thoughts? --TraceyR (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I read somewhere in the depths and intricacies of WP guidelines that a good article should ideally end with such a section - not essential but recommended – I did something similar with a "Fate and legacy" section on HMA No. 1.--Red Sunset 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

I'm requesting an A-class review with the WP:Milihist project. This article should've been bumped up to A months ago and hasn't been due to a lack of activity at the WP:Aviation project. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan - great news! I'll have to be prepared for a few change suggestions, since I was told recently (was that by you?) that MilHist is quite strict. Looking forward to a successful assessment! Cheers. --TraceyR (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A big thank you to all who have helped to get this article through to A-Class, to all who have taken the time to comment, ask questions, edit the article, make suggestions for improvement etc - this is great moment! --TraceyR (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You've only achieved A-class with the aviation project. The MILHIST review is still active and is not yet at the threshold for promotion. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - I'm looking at the MilHist comments now and hope to be able to respond to them within a day or two. --TraceyR (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have gone ahead and closed the MILHIST ACR since it has been open longer than 28 days with an extra grace period which is of the coordinators' discretion. (This is laid out in the instructions at WP:MHR#A-CLASS: "Reviews remain open for a minimum of five days and a maximum of twenty-eight days.") I encourage the editors of this article to complete the suggestions put forward in the review and once those are completed wait a few days and then re-nominate the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lebaudy Patrie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Three small paragraphs is a rather short lead for an article of this length.

   • Undertaken some work to expand the lead, not exaustive at this point. Kyteto (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

   • The Lebaudy République can be linked in the aftermath section and removed from the see also section, which would also have the benefit of getting rid of those odd one-link sub-sections within the see also section.

   • République has been re-linked as recommended. Kyteto (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • What makes ref #18 (Blondel, Dominique) a reliable source?

   • I'll look into this; it may take some time though, due to language issue. --TraceyR (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
   • I've significantly reduced the usage of citation 12 last night, it should make replacing it a great deal easier. Kyteto (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

   • Down to one remaining use of the citation, all other places it was used are sufficiently covered by the other citations. Kyteto (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

   • Looking at the level of detail in Blondel's website, he must have had access to the logbooks or other company records. Probably these have not been published but may be available to authors at the aviation museum Le Bourget. I shall write to him today (letter awaiting translation!). --TraceyR (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

   • I have just heard from Dr. Dominique Blondel, who is the grandchild of Controller-General Théophile Bois, pioneer dirigible pilot and long-time member of the French Air Force. He piloted the Lebaudy, the Patrie, the République and the Liberté. The data on the website come from issue number 154 of "FORCES AÉRIENNES FRANÇAISES", the weekly review of the French Air Force ("Army of the Air") published in December 1959. Unfortunately this issue is not yet available "en ligne" but Dr. Blondel assures me that the information can also be found in the archives of the "Service Historique de l'Armée de Terre" at the Château de Vincennes and in notes and photos made by Théophile Bois himself. Is this enough? --TraceyR (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   • I would suggest adding a note to the reference that gives the information you have just stated: "Information in this reference comes from xxx magazine and and yyy archives". That should be good for GA status, although I would be wary of taking it to FAC. Thank you very much for tracking down this information - it's always fun to work with an editor who is willing to go the extra mile! Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   • Done! It's fun to find these people! Thanks to you and to Kyteto for doing the unglamorous review work which maintains Wikipedia standards! I shall be really delighted if the Patrie makes GA status.--TraceyR (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   • Ref #16 needs a publisher and access date.

   • Done. Kyteto (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

   • What makes ref #22 (Hazemann-Perret, Claude) a reliable source?

   • Gone, unneeded. Kyteto (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

   • What makes ref #36 ("1909, Year of the Aeroplane (Part 2)") a reliable source? Needs a publisher.

   • Gone, unneeded. Kyteto (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

   • What makes ref #37 ("Dirigibles of Imperial Russia (up to 1917)") a reliable source? Needs a publisher.

   • Replaced with fully-reliable book source. Kyteto (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

   • What makes ref #39 ("Austrian Wings") a reliable source? Needs a publisher.

   • The company provided me by return with the following profile (original formatting ignored;translated roughly as follows):"Austrian Wings is Austria's leading and most-read specialist aviation magazine with more that 80,000 unique visitors per month. Because our editorial staff produces and publishes exclusively aviation matters, we work with numerous partners in the printed media, radio, TV and online areas. Austrian Wings produces material for well-known European TV stations and reports in all areas of aviation, e.g. for and in cooperation with the German TV broadcaster Pro /, for its Business magazine "Galileo". Due to their specialist journalistic competence, our editorial staff have an excellence reputation in the aviation industry and have, for the most part, appropriate qualifications, e.g. as pilots. The hard facts:Austrian Wings is based in Vösendorf near Vienna;we have 25 employees;In addition to classical journalism we also produce and publish video reports in cooperation with our partner V-I-P.tv;We are a valuable partner of numerous national and international news agencies, magazines and TV-formats. Austrian Wings is a legally protected trade name."
   • IMHO they are a "Reliable Source", but since Flight is better known in the English-speaking world we should stick to their ref. --TraceyR (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

   • Done. Flight ref. now in place. --TraceyR (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have some questions about some of the references, so I am going to hold off on a full prose review until these are addressed. In the meantime, I'm placing the article on hold, as I believe the issues above are fairly easily remedied with a little TLC. Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood, I shall begin addressing the concerns and make citation improvements in the next 24 hours. Kyteto (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of the main contributors to this article I'm delighted that this review is underway - many thanks to Dana boomer for initiating the process. I shall try to help clarify some of the points. I share the reservations about "Blondel, Dominique" (many references), which is a personal website; I shall try to contact him and discover his sources, so that these can be referenced in the article. The "Austrian Wings" online aircraft industry magazine (one reference) 'seems' reliable enough, but I cannot find any information about the publisher. I shall write to the contact address and try to establish who is behind it, how many employees there are etc. I assume that I am not excluded from this process because I wrote large parts of the article myself ... --TraceyR (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi TraceyR! You are definitely not excluded from the process based on your past improvement - in fact, the main contributors are generally the ones who nominate articles for GAN. With the various references that I have asked questions on, I am very open to being shown that they are, in fact, reliable. I just couldn't verify that fact for myself, and so asked here so that, either: 1) I could be shown evidence that the source is reliable or 2) the reference could be replaced. Personal websites are generally not considered reliable, unless the author can be shown to be an expert in the field. Industry magazines have slightly more initial credibility, but can't just be someone's personal blog that has been prettied up to look like an official publication (not saying this one is, it's just there are a lot out there like that). It's great to see multiple contributors here willing to improve the article. As I said above, I don't think it's that far from GA status - it's mainly the sources I have concerns above, as what prose I have looked at looks quite good. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! I have written to "Austrian Wings" to ask for a company profile but in the meantime have found a reference in Flight to the same event. I'll either replace the current reference or add the Flight ref. Which would be the preferred action? The Blondel references will be harder to replace, I fear, but I'll try to get an email off to him soon. --TraceyR (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that replacing Austrian Wings with Flight would be the best option. Having duplicate cites for non-controversial information is generally frowned upon, and Flight is definitely the better source in this instance. Dana boomer (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone say how to add comments above without messing up the auto-numbering? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Will add replies to the above in a minute, but wanted to answer on the auto-numbering - just add another ":" to the preceeding formatting. So, if I used "#::*", then the next indent would be "#:::*". Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that a bunch of the unreliable refs appear to have just been removed. Are we sure that this information is covered by the next given ref? Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I had fully investigated the removed citations, and have either provided substitute where needed or removed where already covered by other references. I did not proceed further than I had already in instances where the unreliable citations are the sole sourcing of the information pertaining to them; as I respect the same concern that you do. All information should still be covered, I spent hours to achieve this level of balance. Kyteto (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(undent)I'm very pleased to hear that! The references are looking much better, so I will probably start on a prose review this evening. Thanks for all of your work on this so far, both of you! Dana boomer (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks, but otherwise the prose looks quite good. Remaining, I'd still like to see the lead expanded a bit more, and the last Blondel ref replaced, if possible. Dana boomer (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have de-italicised the name Patrie throughout the article. I couldn't find a reference to this usage in the MoS, so I checked the Spitfire article, where the name is not in italics. If it should be in italics after all, please revert! --TraceyR (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted. Classes/types (such as the Spitfire) are not italicized, while individual named ships/aircraft (such as the Patrie) are italicized. So, if each individual Spitfire had a unique name, they would be italicized; however, the class as a whole is not. At this point, I think we're just waiting on a bit of expansion to the lead to make it slightly more proportional to the body and we should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the lead now sufficient; also are there tasks I should be focusing on in regards to this article now? Kyteto (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything now looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. Very nice work, both of you! Dana boomer (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is good news! Thanks for your help in this process, and to Kyteto for the nomination and for all the work on the article to achieve this status. --TraceyR (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

PS Does the review procedure differ for the other projects which have taken an interest in this article (Military history and Aviation), or is a nomination required for each of these too? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)?

One GA nomination serves for all projects (as it is an outside of all projects process). However, A-class, which the article has gone through for MILHIST and Aviation, is actually a level above GA, but is unique by project. This is why I changed the one "B" project rating (WP France I think?) to a GA, but left the others alone. Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks once again! From your experience, would this article need a lot of work to get it to FA (if that's the next step up)? --TraceyR (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

FA is the next step up. I don't think a ton of work would be needed to bring this up to FA-status, but I'm definitely not an expert on FA-level aircraft articles. In particular, I'm not sure what FAC's position on sourcing to images is... I might suggest a peer review, just for an extra set of eyes, and then perhaps asking one of the MILHIST prose people (User:Dank is the first that comes to mind) to take a look and see what they think. You also may want to look at some of the recent aircraft articles that have gone through FA and see if you can pick up anything that might be missing from this article. Anyway, just my thoughts... Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It was just a thought - and there's plenty to do elsewhere and no hurry! --TraceyR (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file 1906 Altitude controls front view AliceGuy.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Unit Conversion problem

Hi, I noticed the figures for envelope gas pressure in PSI (" two inches of water (inAq) (500 Pa, 0.723 psi)") appear to be 10x what they should be for the given water column pressure. I did not want to make a change without knowing for sure that the WC figures were definitive. Perhaps someone with access to the source could check and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.5.162 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)